Congestion charging for Dublin

enterprise

Please enter your vote in the poll.

Would you be in favour of a congestion charging scheme in Dublin city centre?

MrPudding

Could you have an option for "yes, if public transport was a viable option for most of the people currently driving"

BrianD

I would say no. Not on the grounds of having to pay but simply because the city is too small to require one. I doubt if such a charge would have any real effect as Dublins city centre is different to the City of London. As I understand it is just the "City" (as in the financial district) that is charged at the moment. Most Londoners do not need to access this area.

John R

Dublin already has worse traffic than London. We can't (and won't) build out of it.
Public transport will always be rubbish as long as it has to battle for roadspace with all the car traffic.

mackerski

BrianD wrote:

Dublins city centre is different to the City of London. As I understand it is just the "City" (as in the financial district) that is charged at the moment. Most Londoners do not need to access this area.

You are half right - most Londoners don't need to drive into the congestion zone, but it's a damn sight bigger than "The City". Its extent is essentially (and possibly exclusively) defined by what's known as the Inner Ring Road. Anything inside is subject to the charge. For context, some points on the zone boundary: Tower of London, Near Paddington station, Hyde Park Corner.

So the zone is pretty big. However, such is London's layout and transport infrastructure that neither through traffic nor travellers heading into the zone have any reason to drive into the zone with a vehicle. This is why they London charge can be seen as fair.

In Dublin, of course, neither of those conditions is fulfilled, and the authorities haven't even been trying. So, in the words of FF, "a lot more to do" before it becomes reasonable to even propose a congestion charge. _Then_ we can see whether there's any way of defining a charged zone that allows through traffic to avoid it without filling up roads ill-equipped to be urban bypasses.

Dermot

mackerski

John R wrote:

Public transport will always be rubbish as long as it has to battle for roadspace with all the car traffic.

It'll always be rubbish as long as the authorities don't bother to reform it. You can't ban private cars and only then start working out what to replace them with, no matter how much glee that might cause for those lucky (or selfless) enough to manage with the poxy system we have today.

The half-baked proposals you hear for Dublin congestion charges remind me of the South Park underpants gnomes:

3-point plan to rid Dublin of traffic chaos:

1. Charge private cars arm & leg
3. Result: Perfect public transport system, usable by all.

I'm lucky enough not to work in the City Centre. When I do need to get there from Blanchardstown, I usually drive. I'd be only too pleased to use public transport, but even a fiver a use for the congestion zone wouldn't make that appealing for me without adding step 2 to the plan. (Step 2 should, of course, kick in before step 1. Bang goes my analogy).

Possible candidates (for my area) for step 2 (they would probably get me onto public transport even without a congestion charge):

* Decent train frequency
* Feeder buses to train station
* Integrated ticketing, so I can combine buses and trains to avoid 20 minute walks at either end of my journey
* Bus routing to exploit ticketing integration, to provide easy access to anywhere in the city from anywhere else.

You'll notice that only the first item here requires a large infrastructural change, though at least this change is on the cards. So it's loony to suggest applying the stick (congestion charges) before handing out some pretty obvious carrots. It would be a bit like the old-style school master beating the children for not knowing the stuff they hadn't been taught yet. In fairness to the government, they seem to realise this, and have ruled out a charge for the time being.

Dermot

Capt'n Midnight

MrPudding wrote:

Could you have an option for "yes, if public transport was a viable option for most of the people currently driving"

I still reckon it would be cheaper and better to offer very highly subsidised public transport than spend the €5 Bn budget surplus on subsidising, construction companies during a building boom , building roads.

Flukey

It doesn't matter how good a public transport system you have, nothing gives you the same flexibility of your own car, for a whole host of reasons. Provide a good public transport system and you will get more people out of their cars, but there will still be people that need their cars, no matter how good a public transport system you have, and it would be wrong to penalise them. A congestion charge is completely wrong. You have to encourage people to use public transport by positive initiatives. A congestion charge is a negative initiative. This is the opinion of someone who does not even drive.

pork99

Flukey wrote:

It doesn't matter how good a public transport system you have, nothing gives you the same flexibility of your own car, for a whole host of reasons. Provide a good public transport system and you will get more people out of their cars, but there will still be people that need their cars, no matter how good a public transport system you have, and it would be wrong to penalise them. A congestion charge is completely wrong. You have to encourage people to use public transport by positive initiatives. A congestion charge is a negative initiative. This is the opinion of someone who does not even drive.

That's fine in rural and outer suburban areas. There should be a policy of excluding cars as much as possible from Dublin city centre. I'm thinking of cities like Munich as a model. You really should have a pedestrian/public transport only zone going from Grafton St, around College Green, up Westmoreland St and then right up O'Connell St linking with Henry St./Mary St.

mackerski

pork99 wrote:

There should be a policy of excluding cars as much as possible from Dublin city centre. I'm thinking of cities like Munich as a model. You really should have a pedestrian/public transport only zone going from Grafton St, around College Green, up Westmoreland St and then right up O'Connell St linking with Henry St./Mary St.

Our inner area pedestrianisation is already comparable to Munich's in extent and "spirit" (the kinds of streets that are closed to traffic). This despite the fact that Dublin is a bit smaller as a city and has two centres rather than just one old-town with a ring road around it. There's no precedent fofr pedestrianising the likes of O'Connell St and College Green, and to do so would dump a lot of extra traffic onto streets that can't take it.

Dermot

antoinolachtnai

They are planning to increase the size of the london charging area.

Ultimately, they plan to have a congestion charge across the entire UK (GBP 1 / mile during peak times is what they're talking about.)

It is of course true that you need decent competitively priced public transport before you do it.

Victor

In a way, congestion charging may not be needed, simply because existing measures (port tunnel, turn bans) are removing private vehicles fromt he very centre.

mackerski wrote:

This despite the fact that Dublin is a bit smaller as a city and has two centres rather than just one

The reason it has two is largely down to traffic. 10-15 years ago, it was profoundly easier to walk from Grafton Street to O'Connell Street.

mackerski

Victor wrote:

The reason it has two is largely down to traffic. 10-15 years ago, it was profoundly easier to walk from Grafton Street to O'Connell Street.

15 years ago is 1989 - I don't recall it being a lot easier then. Maybe if you go back to the 70s and mid-80s... Part of the issue is that O'Connell St. isn't all that useful a place for most of us to be. You can go from Grafton St. to Henry/Mary/Jervis St. (and from there to O'Connell St., if you choose) by a reasonably pedestrian-friendly route, considering that traffic still needs to flow on the quays and, less compellingly, Dame St.

To return to the Munich model, this is something they usually cope with by installing subway precincts (kept civilised by having actual shops and suchlike underground) to get pedestrians away from areas where the traffic has to keep flowing.

Dermot

ando

Flukey wrote:

but there will still be people that need their cars, no matter how good a public transport system you have

Thats my worry. I drive a company vehicle and am in and out of the city aprox 3 times a day. There's no option, I can't get out and use the bus with thousands of euro worth of hardware under my jacket....

€15 a day = €3900 a year per company vehicle. Jeez

surely the city centre would lose out on business because i could not see my company keeping as many clients in the congestion charge ring

antoinolachtnai

Well, you'd actually save the EUR 15/day easily enough if you were able to get from customer to customer 10 or 20 percent faster, surely? How much time do you spend on the road each day? (I'm not being smart, apparently this is the experience in London. Under the current system there, you pay once per day no matter how often you drive in or out.)

Victor brings up a good point about city centre traffic being reduced by restrictions and the tunnel. However, the suburbs have very serious traffic problems too (arguably much worse).

Looking at it this way, an M50 toll and/or a toll on some of the major new motorways coming into Dublin (together with a vastly improved bus service around the edge) would be more effective than the centre city toll idea.

Flukey

If people just go in and out to the same place, public transport is fine. However many people require to travel to different places, have to carry equipment with them, may have other non-work related journeys to do during the day, or need to get quickly to places which public transport does not allow etc. As Ando says, it is not practical for his company to use public transport. There are a large amount of people that drive in and out every day to the same location and spend their day in that location with their car parked up all day. Those are the type of people we need to encourage to move to public transport. It is happening. Public transport has improved significantly in recent years. We need to encourage people to use public transport rather than discourage them from using their car, if you see what I mean. Moving workplaces out of the city would be another positive move. Decentralising government departments I don't favour, but there are a lot of companies that are in the city that could function just as easily outside the city centre. This is just one example, but there are other areas completely outside the realm of public transport that can affect the problem.

Victor

Flukey wrote:

If people just go in and out to the same place, public transport is fine. However many people require to travel to different places, have to carry equipment with them, may have other non-work related journeys to do during the day, or need to get quickly to places which public transport does not allow etc. As Ando says, it is not practical for his company to use public transport. There are a large amount of people that drive in and out every day to the same location and spend their day in that location with their car parked up all day. Those are the type of people we need to encourage to move to public transport.

"If only the other guy wouldn't use his car".

cdebru

T he thing about congestion charging is that it discriminates against the less well off

lets say the charge is 5 euro a day
not much to someone earning 100,000 a year but for someone on the minimum wage thats a lot of money
their reasons for needing to get onto town may be equally valid
however the better off get to pay a fee to drive through town unheeded
while the less well off are forced onto public transport

better to level the field and ban private motor cars from the city centre altogether

Bee

cdebru wrote:

T he thing about congestion charging is that it discriminates against the less well off

Yes it is total discrimination, car driver pay more than their fair share of tax and what is more it is not spent on roads,transport etc but milked for all it is worth by our FF/PD parasites.

The political appointments in DCC would find an anti motorist tax an excellent idea as they have already applied any stealth tax for the FF/PD's willingly e.g. bin charges etc.

The negative impact of an anti Dublin "congestion" charge is felt most by the avarage person. the rich will happily pay any charge for congestion as it will not hurt them. just look at Michael O'leary's Taxi to abuse bus lanes. The fat cats in Leinster Hse use publically funded transport e.g. chauffeur driven Mercs, will it affect them? no!

Prices will go up along side with service charges, needless to say the poorest will suffer the most. Any ethical thinking individual would be against it.

This is yet another stealth tax, but not a fair tax where everyone pays their share to improve transport, this is a tax on drivers only. It is discriminatory against all drivers, more so against the lower paid.

Bee

Victor

Bee wrote:

This is yet another stealth tax, but not a fair tax where everyone pays their share to improve transport, this is a tax on drivers only. It is discriminatory against all drivers, more so against the lower paid.

Ah, yes pedestrians, well known for causing potholes.

In a way congestion charges and tolls benefit those who live near them. They benefit from the income, but with only part of the expense. If the city imposes a congestion charge, it will be non-(city) residents who will complain the loudest.

cdebru

Victor wrote:

Ah, yes pedestrians, well known for causing potholes.

In a way congestion charges and tolls benefit those who live near them. They benefit from the income, but with only part of the expense. If the city imposes a congestion charge, it will be non-(city) residents who will complain the loudest.

nonesense

how do the people of drogheda benefit from the toll on the M1

or the people from east wall /ringsend benefit from the east link

congestion charging is just a method of forcing the less well of to use public transport so the better of in society can drive through unblocked streets

ban all cars from the city
and improve public transport in the area that cars are banned from

Victor

cdebru wrote:

how do the people of drogheda benefit from the toll on the M1

Tolling increased the ability of the government to finance the bridge, thereby improving the timeframe in which the bridge was provided. Removal of the bulk of the traffic from the town is I think generally accepted as a good thing.

or the people from east wall /ringsend benefit from the east link

The trip between the two is now about 4 miles shorter. In part the bridge has improved the value of properties in these areas by providing better access and less congestion (notwithstanding those properties that face onto the main routes).

More generally my point was, in this example, the city gets part of the revenue from the toll, which is then spent in the city. The commuter from Dun Laoghaire going to the airport doesn't gain as much from this money.

congestion charging is just a method of forcing the less well of to use public transport so the better of in society can drive through unblocked streets

Yes there is an element of that, but to be fair it introduces an element of pay per use / polluter pays.

ban all cars from the city and improve public transport in the area that cars are banned from

I'm working on it.

cdebru

Victor wrote:

Tolling increased the ability of the government to finance the bridge, thereby improving the timeframe in which the bridge was provided. Removal of the bulk of the traffic from the town is I think generally accepted as a good thing.The trip between the two is now about 4 miles shorter. In part the bridge has improved the value of properties in these areas by providing better access and less congestion (notwithstanding those properties that face onto the main routes).

More generally my point was, in this example, the city gets part of the revenue from the toll, which is then spent in the city. The commuter from Dun Laoghaire going to the airport doesn't gain as much from this money.
Yes there is an element of that, but to be fair it introduces an element of pay per use / polluter pays.I'm working on it.

the government did not nee to introduce a toll on the m1 to pay for the bridge over the boyne
besides most people in drogheda dont really go over the bridge they exit before the bridge
now they have pay a toll to use the motorway to dublin when other towns that have been bypassed have no toll

the shorter distance between ringsend and east wall is the benefit of the bridge how do they benefit from the toll on the east link
national toll roads get the money it is not reinvested in the local area
the benefits you mention only derive from having bypasses or bridges not from having tolls
the economic cost of having cars queue on the m50 to pay a toll is never taken into account

i am not aware of drogheda corporation getting any money from the toll
afaik the portion of the money from eastlink westlink goes to the central exchequer and there is no evidence that the money is spent on projects in the area of the toll

the last one i stand by congestion charging is a regressive tax
it punishes the less well off
the irony is it was a "socialist" who introduced it to london

antoinolachtnai

Well, you have to have some restriction. Otherwise the roads will just fill up every morning, and we'll have to build more lanes. Building more lanes in the 'burbs and countryside is no problem really. The problem is that a lot of the traffic ends up in the city centre and inner suburbs. You can't build any more roads there.

The problem with long toll lines could be solved in the morning. Put the cash toll up to 4 euros.

Road space is a valuable commodity. Not charging for it results in it being wasted. This is the reality.

I can see there's a problem with it, in terms of privatizing the public space. That is certainly an issue. But look at the alternative. If we continue down the current road, nobody, not even pedestrians will be able to get anywhere in our city at any speed. That's not exactly a victory for the common man, is it?

If people are poor and need to be able to travel by car into the zone for some reason (disability, lots of kids, whatever) give them a waiver or a discount. What's the problem with that?

cdebru

antoinolachtnai wrote:

Well, you have to have some restriction. Otherwise the roads will just fill up every morning, and we'll have to build more lanes. Building more lanes in the 'burbs and countryside is no problem really. The problem is that a lot of the traffic ends up in the city centre and inner suburbs. You can't build any more roads there.

The problem with long toll lines could be solved in the morning. Put the cash toll up to 4 euros.

Road space is a valuable commodity. Not charging for it results in it being wasted. This is the reality.

I can see there's a problem with it, in terms of privatizing the public space. That is certainly an issue. But look at the alternative. If we continue down the current road, nobody, not even pedestrians will be able to get anywhere in our city at any speed. That's not exactly a victory for the common man, is it?

If people are poor and need to be able to travel by car into the zone for some reason (disability, lots of kids, whatever) give them a waiver or a discount. What's the problem with that?

so you base your restriction on ability to pay

i didn't suggest building more roads i suggested banning all private motorcars from the city centre and improving public transport in that area

so your solution to the m50 toll lines is to increase the toll
the irony that the m50 which is the alternative route to driving through the city centre has a toll on it is lost on you
so what would happen to the cars that would not pay the 4 euro to go over the bridge n the m50 they would go through the city centre
the idea of building a road to take people away from the city centre and then charging them for doing exactly what you want and need them to do is ridicolous
i wonder if instead of congestion charging if the m50 had been built properly and didn't have a toll on it would the traffic through the city centre be lighter i would bet it would be

road space is a valuable commodity and one which we already pay for
in vat and vrt on cars
duty and taxes on fuel
motor tax

your view is i can afford to pay for it therefore if we got rid of the people who haven't got as much money as me i could fly around on the empty roads
and to hell with anyone else and how they get where they are going

the roads belong to the people of ireland not to the people with money
ban all cars from the city or none

Imposter

I think the tolling of roads is a bad idea and in some cases actually defeats the purpose of having the by-pass/motorway as some people will try and avoid the tolls. Over here (Austria) everyone who wants to use the motorways must buy a Vignette (little sticker for the windscreen) which allows you to drive on the motorway. For a year it costs just over 70€. A 2 month one is about 20€ and and a 2 week sticker is 8 or 9€. The thing is if you don't use the motorways, you don't have to buy them. This imo would be a fairer example for Ireland. It would provide the neccessary funding to build and maintain a pretty decent network of motorways and it will only cost the people who want ot use them.

I'm sure a similar idea could also be implemented instead of a congestion charge but that would only be possible if there is a reasonable route that a driver can take that avoids having to go through the charged zone.

antoinolachtnai

cdebru wrote:

so you base your restriction on ability to pay
so your solution to the m50 toll lines is to increase the toll

well, increase the cash toll. If more people paid by eazypass or similar, things would move a lot faster, no?

the irony that the m50 which is the alternative route to driving through the city centre has a toll on it is lost on you

No, the irony is not lost on me at all. In fact metalwork was my favorite subject at school.

It is a good point, and one that needs to be addressed. Why are we tolling bypass roads?

My understanding of the logic is this:

Once upon the time, it was not considered good practice to toll bypass roads, for the obvious reason that you state. Bypass roads were built around many of the worlds great cities. Close to home, we have London and Paris as examples. The idea was that the bypass would relieve traffic in the centre, and make the centre a more pedestrian-friendly environment.

The problem with the idea was that it didn't work in practice. Many journeys were diverted, but the extra roadspace that was freed up was taken over by commuters, and so the logjam in the centres continued. In addition, many of the users of the bypass turned out to be 'discretionary' users. They used the roads to travel greater distances than they would have done before to shop and to work. So the suburbs around the bypasses got greater traffic, and the bypasses got clogged up too.

As a result of this international experience, the original plan for the M50 was to toll the whole thing. This wasn't done in the end. But this was for practical, not philosophical reasons.

your view is i can afford to pay for it therefore if we got rid of the people who haven't got as much money as me i could fly around on the empty roads and to hell with anyone else and how they get where they are going

No, that isn't my view. I don't know how you picked that up.

the roads belong to the people of ireland not to the people with money
ban all cars from the city or none

What about people who have some legitimate need to drive into the city? Sales people? Tradesmen? Maintenance/Repair? Disabled people?

Surely you can accept that there would be a benefit to reducing the amount of cars in the city, without completely banning them?

It is true that the roads belong to the people. But you can look at this in many different ways. At the moment, only people rich enough to have a car are able to fully benefit from them, because public transport isn't as good or as economic as it could be. With a congestion charge, the people who can't afford cars would be put on a more even footing with people who can.

Let me put it in more concrete terms. When I go to pick someone up from the airport, I always go by car. It costs me around 50 cents in petrol and 1.20 in parking. If you factor in the cost of purchasing and maintaining the car, it brings it up another four euros, to five euros or so.

If I was to make the same trip by public transport, (which I would have to if I weren't lucky enough to own a car) it would cost me around 19 euro, almost four times as much.

How is that fair? How does that benefit the common man?

You could also say the same thing about the ownership of the railways. The railways clearly belong to all the people of Ireland, seeing how we pay so much towards maintaining them, but that doesn't mean that we should all be able to ride for free.